Phantoms
Performance & Direction: Phantoms Review
Last updated: February 14, 2026
Quick Verdict: Hit or Flop?
Is Phantoms (1998) worth watching? According to our cinematic analysis, the film stands as a AVERAGE with a verified audience rating of 5.4/10. Whether you're looking for the box office collection, ending explained, or parents guide, our review covers everything you need to know about this Horror.
Cast Performances: A Masterclass
The success of any Horror is often anchored by its ensemble, and Phantoms features a noteworthy lineup led by Ben Affleck . Supported by the likes of Peter O'Toole and Rose McGowan , the performances bring a palpable realism to the scripted words.
Performance Analysis: While the cast delivers competent and professional performances, they are occasionally hampered by a script that leans into familiar archetypes.
Final Verdict: Is it Worth Watching?
Story & Plot Summary: Phantoms
Quick Plot Summary: Phantoms is a Horror, Science Fiction, Thriller film that crafts an atmosphere of dread and suspense, using psychological terror and visual scares. This summary provides a scannable look at the movie's central conflict and narrative structure.
Ending Explained: Phantoms
Ending Breakdown: Phantoms attempts to tie together its various plot elements. The finale presents its approach to horror resolution.
The final reveal recontextualizes earlier scenes, offering viewers material for post-viewing discussion.
Ending Analysis:
- Narrative Resolution: The story concludes by addressing its primary narrative threads, providing closure while maintaining some ambiguity.
- Character Arcs: Character journeys reach their narrative endpoints, reflecting the film's thematic priorities.
- Thematic Payoff: The ending reinforces the horror themes established throughout the runtime.
The final moments of Phantoms reflect the filmmakers' creative choices, offering an ending that aligns with the film's tone and style.
Who Should Watch Phantoms?
Consider Watching If:
- You're a completist for Horror films
- You're curious despite mixed reviews
- You have low expectations and want casual entertainment
Box Office Collection: Phantoms
| Metric / Region | Collection (Approx) |
|---|---|
| Production Budget | $14.0M |
| Worldwide Gross | $5.6M |
| Trade Verdict | FINANCIAL DISAPPOINTMENT |
Phantoms Budget
The estimated production budget for Phantoms is $14.0M. This figure covers principal photography, talent acquisitions, and visual effects. When accounting for global marketing and distribution, the break-even point is typically 2x the base production cost.
Top Cast: Phantoms
All Cast & Crew →











Where to Watch Phantoms Online?
Streaming Hub🎟️ Rent on
Apple TV Store
Amazon Video🏷️ Buy on
Apple TV StorePhantoms Parents Guide & Age Rating
1998 AdvisoryWondering about Phantoms age rating or if it's safe for kids? Here is our cinematic advisory:
⏱️ Runtime & Duration
The total runtime of Phantoms is 96 minutes (1h 36m). Ensuring you have enough time for the full cinematic experience.
Verdict Summary
Analyzing the overall audience sentiment, verified rating of 5.4/10, and global performance metrics, Phantoms is classified as a AVERAGE. It remains an essential part of the 1998 cinematic calendar.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Phantoms worth watching?
Phantoms is definitely worth watching if you enjoy Horror movies. It has a verified rating of 5.4/10 and stands as a AVERAGE in our box office analysis.
Where can I find Phantoms parents guide and age rating?
The official parents guide for Phantoms identifies it as R. Our detailed advisory section above covers all content warnings for families.
What is the total runtime of Phantoms?
The total duration of Phantoms is 96 minutes, which is approximately 1h 36m long.
Best Movies to Watch if you liked Phantoms
How Phantoms Compares & Where it Ranks
Critic Reviews for Phantoms
The first thing we'd like to know is what we're dealing with, biological, chemical, or other. Directed by Joe Chappelle and written by Dean Koontz, who adapts from his own novel, Phantoms (not the greatest title all things considered) is a considerably well put together amalgamation of horror/sci-fi/creature feature tropes. If at times it feels clichéd and formulaic, then that is ultimately a curse of the cinematic genres it lives and breaths in. Plot basically has two sisters played by Rose McGowan and Joanna Going arriving in the town of Snowfield, Cololrado, to find most of the inhabitants dead, diseased or dismembered. A trio of coppers turn up played by Liev Schreiber (shifty malevolence), Ben Affleck (square jawed bastion of heroism) and Nicky Katt (fodder of course), and thus a fight for survival ensues as Peter O'Toole's sharp doctor character comes flying in to become the fulcrum of the story. So yep! There's something very evil and nasty at work here and the makers expand upon the reasons why with a drip-feed mixture of mad science and intelligent thematic ideas. The effects work is more than adequate and the strong cast list perform well up to scratch (nice to see O'Toole doesn't phone it in to denigrate the story). Things are taken very seriously throughout, the makers in no way biting the hand that feeds them, while the requisite insertions of jump - shocks - twists and mayhem are handled with care and attention by the director. You may come away as I did with a hunger to dig out your copy of John Carpenter's sublime The Thing? Which in truth is never a bad "thing," but this is still sturdy stuff, a pic caked in genre cement, and crucially it doesn't waste the time invested by the genre compliant viewers. 7/10
The Thing’s long lost cousin (sort of) in an isolated town in the mountains of Colorado Two sisters (Rose McGowan & Joanna Going) visit a town in the Rockies, which is mysteriously absent of people except for a few corpses. They eventually encounter a Sheriff (Ben Affleck) and his deputies as the mystery deepens (Liev Schreiber plays one of the deputies). Peter O'Toole is on hand as an eccentric British writer who assists the group while Clifton Powell plays the commanding officer of an Army unit sent to the town. The movie came out in 1998 and was written by heralded horror author Dean Koontz (both the screenplay and the novel). The story is basically “The Thing” (1982) set in a Rockies town with various nuances, like the addition of two females. Speaking of whom, Rose and Joanna have stunning faces, but their beauty is never really capitalized on in the film. Joanna, for instance, wears ridiculously baggy tan slacks the entire runtime. The first half is nice & mysterious with several genuinely creepy sequences whereas the second half focuses on the incredible source of the horror and the complexities thereof. People complain about the latter portions, and I can see where they’re coming from, but I like the way the protagonists put their heads together to try to figure out and defeat the diabolical phenomenon. The film runs 1 hour, 36 minutes and was shot in Georgetown, Colorado. GRADE: B-
I had last seen this probably back in 2000 on DVD but don't remember a damn thing about it and really only remember the line in Jay and Silent Bob Stike Back, "Affleck was the bomb in Phantoms". In any case, some of the effects were decent and cool shots here and there, but the quick editing, likely to cover the deficiencies in the effects, was annoying. Watchable I guess but had so much potential to be better. Kind of surprising nobody has tried to adapt this in a mini-series. **2.5/5**
movieMx Verified
This review has been verified for accuracy and editorial quality by our senior cinematic analysts.
This analysis is compiled by our editorial experts using multi-source verification and audience sentiment data for maximum accuracy.









